Google is a data broker whose revenue comes almost entirely from collecting, analyzing, and selling user data. It's hard for me to see anyone with a brain buying "smart home" products made by them. If anything, I expect the trend to be an increase in regulation of the industries in which they operate (we see this starting to pick up in Europe) and a decrease in their brand equity.

The amount of Google will be collecting is worrisome, but there is one thing we can hope for out of this, especially if they merge this with some of their robotics research:

*REAL* home automation.

I don't mean nearly-useless things like thermostats that adjust themselves or lights that automatically turn on/off. I mean getting rid of the annoying chores that nobody enjoys. Loading the dishwasher. Gathering clothes and putting them in the washer and putting them away after they're clean. Dusting. Cleaning out the fridge. Raking leaves. Mowing the lawn. Pruning the bushes. Mopping the floor. All of those things are time-consuming and often annoying and haven't been addressed worth a darn (they're hard problems, after all).

A self-driving lawnmower isn't too far off when you have a self-driving car...

I love the vision of where this is going... the future mesh "smart" home where everything works together to make my life super convenient and saves me money.

The idea of an All-Home API for home appliances and utilities is genius. Imagine dismissing your morning alarm on your smartphone and then tapping the "make coffee" button on your phone's screen. The potential is enormous for people who are more creative than me.

BUT BUT BUT...I love this vision without Google's involvement. Now it just seems creepy and uncomfortable if it's sold and controlled by them. Maybe it's just me, I just want my mesh network to be MY mesh network, without an advertising company's eyes all up in its business.

I hope this spurs someone to be the competitor Google needs in this field. At their current pace, with military robots, self-driving cars, street-view cameras, home automation devices... Google is looking unmatched in their vision of the future. Kinda cool, kinda worrisome.

I love the vision of where this is going... the future mesh "smart" home where everything works together to make my life super convenient and saves me money.

The idea of an All-Home API for home appliances and utilities is genius. Imagine dismissing your morning alarm on your smartphone and then tapping the "make coffee" button on your phone's screen. The potential is enormous for people who are more creative than me.

BUT BUT BUT...I love this vision without Google's involvement. Now it just seems creepy and uncomfortable if it's sold and controlled by them. Maybe it's just me, I just want my mesh network to be MY mesh network, without an advertising company's eyes all up in its business.

I hope this spurs someone to be the competitor Google needs in this field. At their current pace, with military robots, self-driving cars, street-view cameras, home automation devices... Google is looking unmatched in their vision of the future. Kinda cool, kinda worrisome.

Ditto. I was planning on buying a Nest thermostat and a couple of their smoke detectors in the next few months, but I'm going to pass now. I use and like a lot of Google's core services (pours one out for Google Reader), but, call me paranoid, I'd like there to be at least a few corners of my life where their tendrils don't reach.

This is false. When you buy a product for a dollar amount you know what you are getting: the product. When you are signing up to a "free" service you click "I agree." Most people on the planet not only skip the dozens of pages of implications, but also lack the qualifications to comprehend them even if they did take the time to read it all. So they blindly click. We know this because there's an incredible amount of academic research describing it. People choose defaults, agree, etc.

Google is really a kind of super-company - it doesn't really design products or services itself any more, it just buys entire companies, almost 'off the shelf' and then plugs them into its portfolio of offerings. Not many other 'super companies' out there either - Apple, Microsoft... GE? Lockheed?

I also don't have any issues with Google offering hardware services for the home or anywhere else. There's a lot of folk assuming Nest products are going to spy on them, upload data to Doubleclick etc... but has Google said a single thing about doing this?

I don't much at all about Nest or why it was worth $3.2bn, even after reading this article, but I think it's exciting to watch how Google expands from being purely an information company to one offering serious hardware and software products, along with presumably quite tight integration, across a growing number of fronts. I'd say it's almost Borg-like, except that would be a rather negative thing to say.

Microsoft much be watching this assimilation of leading tech with a mixture of interest and concern... Even Apple must be feeling the pressure a bit, as Google becomes ...whatever it becomes.

This is false. When you buy a product for a dollar amount you know what you are getting: the product. When you are signing up to a "free" service you click "I agree." Most people on the planet not only skip the dozens of pages of implications, but also lack the qualifications to comprehend them even if they did take the time to read it all. So they blindly click. We know this because there's an incredible amount of academic research describing it. People choose defaults, agree, etc.

I totally agree!!!

I have had to disable sync, location and all the other "services" multiple times since AT&T shoved 4.3 to my S4...

I disable them and they re-initialize...

No one I know (...and, honestly neither do I fully) understand(s) the power of the Google..

...I love this vision without Google's involvement. Now it just seems creepy and uncomfortable if it's sold and controlled by them. Maybe it's just me, I just want my mesh network to be MY mesh network, without an advertising company's eyes all up in its business. ...

Nest is a retrofit product for old HVAC, but the future of HVAC is variable speed blowers, mult-stage heat pumps, etc. If anything, you need to know outdoor temperature and a profile of the thermal losses of the house to make an actual smart thermostat. This is especially true since the more modern HVAC systems don't open the flood gate of BTUs, but try to apply more even temperature control.

And nothing says these devices have to be wifi connected except in retrofit where nobody wants to pay to run wires.

I just don't see this as much of a business for Google since proprietary solutions will always be superior.

"Even if Google had full access to Nest's data, it would probably be the least accurate form of location data it has about a smartphone user."

Only half true. Agreed Google will have great location data based on all Android users (thats official Android, not Kindle etc). But they'll have very spotty or even zero location data from iPhone users and others.

If I had a Nest, Google would gain tonnes of info about me that it didn't have before (info that I don't want to give)

Google is really a kind of super-company - it doesn't really design products or services itself any more, it just buys entire companies, almost 'off the shelf' and then plugs them into its portfolio of offerings. Not many other 'super companies' out there either - Apple, Microsoft... GE? Lockheed?

Apple, Microsoft, GE, and Lockheed all have multiple revenue streams and a diverse customer base that pays real money for their products. Google makes almost its entire revenue from selling user data to advertisers. That makes it a very different company and, in my opinion, much more vulnerable. Actions over the past five years suggest that if anyone panics, it's probably Google, with Microsoft almost being next in line (they're just much slower).

I would also be careful about interpreting [Google's] acquisitions. When an allegedly consumer-facing company has to make mergers and acquisitions in order to expand its product/service line and user base it usually means it's unable to do so on its own. I imagine that's not too far from the truth. Apple pays relatively small sums for mostly a technology. Google pays relatively high sums for users, patents, and talent. It also has a lot of (off-shore) money it doesn't want to pay taxes on.

The Google Games / Play store revamp that is impending and the rumor of Google launching a Ouya-like Android based home console; how would that fit in with this concept of "connected home?"

In concept, microconsole / set top box seems like it would be the archstone of Google taking over your home appliances, I wonder if this new division is actually going to be the ones in charge of something like that.

Maybe it's just me, I just want my mesh network to be MY mesh network, without an advertising company's eyes all up in its business.

That is where my mind is at as well, so it's not just you. I love the potential applications for these things. However before I welcome them into my home I have to feel secure that the information feeds a database I alone control.

It's wonderful that we live in an age of cheap computing analytics. I can only wish for an age where these things add value to the consumer, rather than hijacked to spy on the consumer. Once that day arrives I will be happy to make a purchase. Until then, I'll hang onto my privacy behind closed doors.

Chances of me buying any part of the "Google Smart Home / Smart Car" ecosystem in the future: 0%.

Doesn't pay to take one's privacy lightly, because once it's gone or partially gone you'll never get it back. Like we and all of Congress did when they passed the Patriot Act and we were so sure "nothing bad will come from it". No mulligans, folks.

I liked the concept of the Nest when it first came out, and considered doing it when I'm not in a rental anymore. What I don't want, however, is something that's going to be forcibly connected to my [unwanted] Google+ profile so that hardware stores can advertise air filters.

That aside, I've observed market research where people were trying out thermostats that announced what the running usage and energy bill was, and saw a sick level of sadistic glee at family members figuring out who else they could harass. I can only imagine this happening on a larger scale if they decide to automatically post, say, your new temperature setting to your profile every time it changes? "Sweet Jesus! John Smith keeps his house at 72° because he doesn't like freezing his ass off in winter, doesn't he know that's wasteful!?!?!"

How the hell could Nest be worth that much? I remember looking into a Nest thermostat on Amazon and waded through scores of negative reviews. People complained that it would lose their settings, never update or when it did update..it would wipe all the settings. There were complaints about wifi compatibility. I think the biggest complaint was how long it took to learn your ways and everyone seemed pissed about not being able to manual override the thermostat on a day off when you were not on the regular learned schedule. Most recommended skipping the Nest.

Like others, I'd been considering getting a Nest until this announcement. If Google came out and unequivocally stated (in some legally binding way that would make some class action lawyers part owners - or criminal penalties for execs, if Google reneged or lied) that any data collected from Nest and their other paid services and products would not be used in their advertising operations now or ever I'd probably consider it again. Until then, I just can't bring myself to pay Google to sell my information. I'll let them profit off of me by selling my data OR by selling me goods and services, but not both at the same time.

However, I expect that since many people are desensitized to Google collecting data about them because of Google's free services, Google will be able to continue selling these and future products at a profit while also selling the data they collect from the very same services.

How the hell could Nest be worth that much? I remember looking into a Nest thermostat on Amazon and waded through scores of negative reviews. People complained that it would lose their settings, never update or when it did update..it would wipe all the settings. There were complaints about wifi compatibility. I think the biggest complaint was how long it took to learn your ways and everyone seemed pissed about not being able to manual override the thermostat on a day off when you were not on the regular learned schedule. Most recommended skipping the Nest.

Did you elide the positive reviews? The Nest Thermostat is a four-star device on Amazon, and that's including all the one-star reviews that came flooding in since Google bought them yesterday.

How the hell could Nest be worth that much? I remember looking into a Nest thermostat on Amazon and waded through scores of negative reviews. People complained that it would lose their settings, never update or when it did update..it would wipe all the settings. There were complaints about wifi compatibility. I think the biggest complaint was how long it took to learn your ways and everyone seemed pissed about not being able to manual override the thermostat on a day off when you were not on the regular learned schedule. Most recommended skipping the Nest.

Google bought the team. Tony Fadell did create the original iPod and did lit up Steve Jobs' eyes with his sales pitch.

Google is a data broker whose revenue comes almost entirely from collecting, analyzing, and selling user data. It's hard for me to see anyone with a brain buying "smart home" products made by them. If anything, I expect the trend to be an increase in regulation of the industries in which they operate (we see this starting to pick up in Europe) and a decrease in their brand equity.

And without further ado, that Ned Ludd fellow smashed the stocking frames and started a revolution.

I can understand the appeal of having a connected home. Being able to control all the lights from my couch would be neat, as would getting an update on my phone from my washing machine when its finished, or having my refrigerator provide me with a shopping list of things I needed.

My problem with the IoT though is that all that information would undoubtedly be sent back to the company that made either my lights, washing machine, or refrigerator and that makes me uncomfortable. I also don't think having my appliances connected to the internet really provides me with much benefit; the benefit of internet connectivity all goes to the manufacturer who learns about my habits. Why do I need access to my lights, washing machine, or any other appliance when I'm away from home? The answer is I don't. I only really need updates or access when I'm at home using said appliance.

Ideally, these types of connected devices would only work on a local network and never actually connect to the internet. My refrigerator could update a shopping list on my phone each time my phone connected to my home wifi. The washing machine could send a message to my phone only when the phone was connected to my home wifi. Lights could automatically turn on and off depending on which room I was in assuming the phone was connected to my wifi network and a gps location was accurate enough.

All that would be really neat and awesome and its probably all possible. However, as awesome and neat as that would be, I'm not willing to participate in the IoT if it means information about my habits gets sent to some manufacturer who just wants data. Ultimately thats what all this feels like...just one big data grab by companies because they can make money from it. I don't plan to participate.

I have a Nest. I bought it because I grew up in a house with a timer thermostat and it was terrible. The Nest's selling feature for me was that it would figure out how long it takes to heat your house and try to get to that temperature at the time I set. Remote control over the web was a good idea, but there are plenty of other choices if that's all you want. Also, I wanted to see just how long my furnace ran, and the idea that it would learn my usage patterns seemed interesting.

But in reality anyone could build their own thermostat using Arduino and a few parts that does 90% of what the Nest does, although without much of the style. It's not really all that "smart" just smarter than the old Honeywell mercury switch that it replaces.

I think the disturbing thing with Google is their "all or nothing" stance. You'll put up with ads in Gmail, you'll automatically be enrolled in Google+, We'll go ahead and create a Play store account for you since you're an Android user. If it comes to a point where I can't opt out of whatever plans they have for Nest, I'll be installing my home-brew solution.

I can understand the appeal of having a connected home. Being able to control all the lights from my couch would be neat, as would getting an update on my phone from my washing machine when its finished, or having my refrigerator provide me with a shopping list of things I needed.

My problem with the IoT though is that all that information would undoubtedly be sent back to the company that made either my lights, washing machine, or refrigerator and that makes me uncomfortable. I also don't think having my appliances connected to the internet really provides me with much benefit; the benefit of internet connectivity all goes to the manufacturer who learns about my habits. Why do I need access to my lights, washing machine, or any other appliance when I'm away from home? The answer is I don't. I only really need updates or access when I'm at home using said appliance.

Ideally, these types of connected devices would only work on a local network and never actually connect to the internet. My refrigerator could update a shopping list on my phone each time my phone connected to my home wifi. The washing machine could send a message to my phone only when the phone was connected to my home wifi. Lights could automatically turn on and off depending on which room I was in assuming the phone was connected to my wifi network and a gps location was accurate enough.

All that would be really neat and awesome and its probably all possible. However, as awesome and neat as that would be, I'm not willing to participate in the IoT if it means information about my habits gets sent to some manufacturer who just wants data. Ultimately thats what all this feels like...just one big data grab by companies because they can make money from it. I don't plan to participate.

And all the data is available to you through their proprietary "app" that won't allow you to export usage data, or control devices from other companies (who have their own apps too). And when all that data gets hijacked off their server, are you going to have to change the password to your house?!?

Google is now actually shipping products that deliver on the promise of the connected home

The article makes this sound like they are unique in this regard. There are many, many companies providing home automation. Nest did a reasonable job with the thermostat and a very nice one with the smoke detectors, but they lack the breadth to equip an automated home. If Google really wants to reinvent the hardware wheel, there is a lot of work to do there.

Quote:

This was called the "Android@Home Framework," and Google designed a wireless standard allowing Android to communicate with "lights, alarm clocks, thermostats, dishwashers, et cetera." The company even demoed turning lights on and off with an Android app. The first Android@Home devices were promised at the end of 2011, but none of the smart home hardware ever made it to consumers.

That's because this strategy is fundamentally misguided. What they should have done is created the links to work with the existing hardware. None of those manufacturers have any motivation to retool what they are doing to suit Google. Well, that's not entirely true. When and if Google puts their advertising muscle into home automation, those manufacturers will have the motivation to grab ahold of the publicity train. Because public awareness is something they lack.

Just read the comments here. E.g. voice controlled home automation. Mowing the lawn, mopping the floor, make coffee. All available now without Google. (CastleOS even uses the Kinect sensor for their voice control.)

But once Google starts trying to convince everyone how useful home automation is, those other companies will be there with products that are well past the beta stage.

I feel like I can keep google at bay because I feel like I can control my internet activities and information. Having the internet world IRL breaks that barrier and is scary enough. Nest was ok to test with. A startup looking to convince us that this is a great thing. But when you throw Google in the mix, that feels different. Now getting a nest device means letting Google across that barrier.

It feels just wrong. No thanks. I want to shut the laptop sometimes, put the phone down.

Apple, Microsoft, GE, and Lockheed all have multiple revenue streams and a diverse customer base that pays real money for their products. Google makes almost its entire revenue from selling user data to advertisers. That makes it a very different company and, in my opinion, much more vulnerable. Actions over the past five years suggest that if anyone panics, it's probably Google, with Microsoft almost being next in line (they're just much slower).

This is a really shitty if not false way of putting it. Google makes ~50% of its revenue off of ads it sells on its own sites: ~35% off of network ads, 8% off other, and 7% or so running Motorola.

It does not "sell" user data, it sells ads, primarily targeting users of google's services but also targeting people just browsing the internet in general. The distinction there is that google retains the data it has been given or inferred about its users (all of which can be viewed on their Ad Preferences site). The ad tools google has allows advertisers to choose demographics, but they don't get access to raw user data ever. It's not like going out and buying a mailing list, the advertisers get absolutely no PII from their ad viewers/clickers.

Advertising company: yes. Data brokerage: no. The latter claim would be far more fairly made against Facebook or any of the other social networking companies than against Google.

Apple, Microsoft, GE, and Lockheed all have multiple revenue streams and a diverse customer base that pays real money for their products. Google makes almost its entire revenue from selling user data to advertisers. That makes it a very different company and, in my opinion, much more vulnerable. Actions over the past five years suggest that if anyone panics, it's probably Google, with Microsoft almost being next in line (they're just much slower).

This is a really shitty if not false way of putting it. Google makes ~50% of its revenue off of ads it sells on its own sites: ~35% off of network ads, 8% off other, and 7% or so running Motorola.

It does not "sell" user data, it sells ads, primarily targeting users of google's services but also targeting people just browsing the internet in general. The distinction there is that google retains the data it has been given or inferred about its users (all of which can be viewed on their Ad Preferences site). The ad tools google has allows advertisers to choose demographics, but they don't get access to raw user data ever. It's not like going out and buying a mailing list, the advertisers get absolutely no PII from their ad viewers/clickers.

Advertising company: yes. Data brokerage: no. The latter claim would be far more fairly made against Facebook or any of the other social networking companies than against Google.

The advertisers do get information about people who click their ads, namely that the people clicking the ads fit whatever selection criteria was used to serve the ad. Depending on what criteria was used, that could be quite a bit of information. Especially since you can easily custom craft ads for each targeted segment.

About six months ago, I switched my default search engine to DuckDuckGo when every time I went to the Google search page, I kept being asked to join Google+. Last week, when Google integrated Google+ into Gmail, I switch email providers because I didn't want Google+. I thought I was free from Google and Google+.

Now, they're buying Nest and I have two of their thermostats in my house. They won't stop until we join.

Apple, Microsoft, GE, and Lockheed all have multiple revenue streams and a diverse customer base that pays real money for their products. Google makes almost its entire revenue from selling user data to advertisers. That makes it a very different company and, in my opinion, much more vulnerable. Actions over the past five years suggest that if anyone panics, it's probably Google, with Microsoft almost being next in line (they're just much slower).

This is a really shitty if not false way of putting it. Google makes ~50% of its revenue off of ads it sells on its own sites: ~35% off of network ads, 8% off other, and 7% or so running Motorola.

It does not "sell" user data, it sells ads, primarily targeting users of google's services but also targeting people just browsing the internet in general. The distinction there is that google retains the data it has been given or inferred about its users (all of which can be viewed on their Ad Preferences site). The ad tools google has allows advertisers to choose demographics, but they don't get access to raw user data ever. It's not like going out and buying a mailing list, the advertisers get absolutely no PII from their ad viewers/clickers.

Advertising company: yes. Data brokerage: no. The latter claim would be far more fairly made against Facebook or any of the other social networking companies than against Google.

The advertisers do get information about people who click their ads, namely that the people clicking the ads fit whatever selection criteria was used to serve the ad. Depending on what criteria was used, that could be quite a bit of information. Especially since you can easily custom craft ads for each targeted segment.

Sure, you can target it pretty narrowly down to a certain geographic area, demographic group, etc. But you're not going to get the person's name, email address, phone number, etc. That's what's implied by "sells data". Targeted advertising, love it or hate it, is not selling user data, it's selling ad slots based on a very big black box that the advertiser doesn't get to see much of the inside of.